Royal Arsenal v Echo Star: Admiralty Action, Maritime Liens & Proper Defendant

In the High Court of Singapore, S Mohan JC addressed the question of who should enter an appearance as a defendant in an admiralty action in rem following a collision between the Royal Arsenal and the Echo Star (ex-Gas Infinity). The Royal Arsenal's owners commenced an action against the Echo Star, which had changed ownership from Sea Dolphin to Cepheus after the collision but before the action was filed. The court ruled that Sea Dolphin, the owner at the time of the collision, was the proper defendant, dismissing the appeal and allowing Cepheus to withdraw its appearance as defendant and intervene in the action.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed. The proper party to enter an appearance in the admiralty action as the defendant was Sea Dolphin and not Cepheus. Cepheus was granted leave to withdraw its appearance as defendant and to intervene in the action.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Collision case involving Royal Arsenal and Echo Star. Court clarifies who should enter appearance as defendant in admiralty action in rem.

1.7 Decision Date

27 September 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the Vessel “ROYAL ARSENAL”	Plaintiff	Other	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Mary-Anne Shu-Hui Chua of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Jude Philomen Benny of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the Vessel “ECHO STAR” (ex-GAS INFINITY)	Defendant, Intervener	Other	Leave to Withdraw Appearance Granted	Won	Dedi Affandi bin Ahmad of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Vellayappan Balasubramaniyam of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Dinesh Sabapathy of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Sea Dolphin Co., Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Appearance as Defendant	Neutral	Dedi Affandi bin Ahmad of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Vellayappan Balasubramaniyam of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Dinesh Sabapathy of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Cepheus Limited	Intervener	Corporation	Leave to Intervene Granted	Won	Dedi Affandi bin Ahmad of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Vellayappan Balasubramaniyam of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Dinesh Sabapathy of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
S Mohan	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Mary-Anne Shu-Hui Chua	Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Jude Philomen Benny	Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Dedi Affandi bin Ahmad	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Vellayappan Balasubramaniyam	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Dinesh Sabapathy	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

Royal Arsenal and Echo Star collided in the Straits of Hormuz on April 7, 2019.
At the time of the collision, Echo Star was named Gas Infinity and owned by Sea Dolphin Co., Ltd.
On July 28, 2019, Sea Dolphin sold the Ship to Cepheus Limited.
On November 6, 2019, the owners of Royal Arsenal commenced Admiralty action in rem against the Echo Star.
On November 15, 2019, Cepheus’ lawyers filed a Memorandum of Appearance for Cepheus as the defendant.
Cepheus furnished security of US$6,796,354.00 into court and the Ship was released from arrest.
On January 20, 2020, Rajah & Tann also entered an appearance in the action on behalf of Sea Dolphin as defendant.

5. Formal Citations

The “Echo Star” ex “Gas Infinity”, Admiralty in Rem No 143 of 2019 (Registrar’s Appeal No 106 of 2020), [2020] SGHC 200

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2019-04-07	Royal Arsenal and Echo Star were involved in a collision.
2019-06-25	Sea Dolphin and Cepheus entered into a Memorandum of Agreement.
2019-07-28	Sea Dolphin sold the Ship and transferred ownership of it to Cepheus.
2019-11-06	Owners of the Royal Arsenal commenced Admiralty action in rem No 143 of 2019.
2019-11-15	Cepheus’ lawyers filed a Memorandum of Appearance, entering appearance for Cepheus as the defendant.
2019-12-18	Assistant Registrar ordered Cepheus to furnish security.
2019-12-20	Cepheus paid a sum of US$6,796,354.00 into court.
2019-12-20	The Ship was released from arrest.
2020-01-20	Rajah & Tann entered an appearance in the action on behalf of Sea Dolphin as defendant.
2020-01-21	Sea Dolphin filed its List of Electronic Track Data.
2020-01-31	Rajah & Tann requested the plaintiff’s consent for Cepheus to withdraw its MOA as defendant.
2020-02-07	The plaintiff’s lawyers replied stating that the plaintiff was not prepared to give its consent.
2020-03-12	Cepheus filed Summons No 1187 of 2020.
2020-06-12	SUM 1187 was heard by the learned Assistant Registrar who allowed the application.
2020-07-20	Hearing date.
2020-09-28	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Proper Defendant in Admiralty Action in Rem
- Outcome: The court held that the proper party to enter an appearance in the admiralty action as the defendant was the owner of the ship at the time of the collision, not the owner at the time the writ was issued.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Withdrawal of appearance
  - Intervention
Maritime Lien
- Outcome: The court affirmed that a claim arising from damage caused by a ship gives rise to a maritime lien, which is not defeated by a subsequent change in ownership.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary damages
Security for claim

9. Cause of Actions

Damage caused by a ship (collision)

10. Practice Areas

Admiralty
Shipping
Maritime Liens

11. Industries

Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The Bunga Melati 5	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 546	Singapore	Cited for the Court of Appeal’s summary regarding the valid invocation of the court’s admiralty in rem jurisdiction under s 4(4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act.
The Halcyon Isle	Privy Council	Yes	[1979-1980] SLR (R) 538	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a claim which gives rise to a maritime lien is not defeated by a subsequent change in the ownership of the ship.
The Bold Buccleugh	Privy Council	Yes	(1851) 7 Moo PC 267	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that a claim arising from damage caused by a ship gives rise to a maritime lien.
The Helene Roth	Not Available	Yes	[1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 477	Not Available	Cited for the proposition that the relevant owner is the owner at the time of the issuance of the writ.
The Father Thames	Not Available	Yes	[1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 364	Not Available	Cited for the question of whether a demise charterer could be deemed an “owner” for purposes of an in rem action.
The Monica S	Not Available	Yes	[1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 113	Not Available	Cited for the proposition that the relevant owner is the owner at the time of the issuance of the writ.
The Igor	Not Available	Yes	[1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 271	Not Available	Cited for the proposition that the relevant owner is the owner at the time of the issuance of the writ.
The Bolbina	Not Available	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR(R) 894	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the statutory lien only accrues and crystallises at the time the in rem action is commenced.
The Utopia	Privy Council	Yes	[1893] AC 492	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the foundation of the lien is the negligence of the owners or their servants at the time of the collision.
The Soeraya Emas	Not Available	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 479	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if the defendant enters an appearance, he submits himself personally to the jurisdiction of the court.
The Fierbinti	Not Available	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR(R) 574	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if the defendant enters an appearance, he submits himself personally to the jurisdiction of the court.
The Mawan	Not Available	Yes	[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 459	Not Available	Cited for the principle that the in rem writ should describe the action as being an action in rem against the ship under its current name on the date the writ is filed.
Precious Shipping Public Co Ltd and others v OW Bunker Far East (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others and other matters	Not Available	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 1229	Singapore	Cited for the definition of a maritime lien.
Somportex Ltd. v Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp.	Not Available	Yes	[1968] 3 All ER 26	Not Available	Cited for the principle that leave may not be granted if there was “no question of a mistake”.
Woh Hup (Pte.) Ltd. v Property Development Ltd	Not Available	Yes	[1991] 1 SLR(R) 473	Singapore	Cited for the principle that leave may not be granted if there was “no question of a mistake”.
The Khedive	Not Available	Yes	(1882) 7 App Cas 795	Not Available	Cited regarding the operation of the “single liability principle”.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 21 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court
Order 70 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court
Order 70 Rule 19(4) of the Rules of Court
Order 12, Rules 1 to 4 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Admiralty action in rem
Maritime lien
Damage lien
Memorandum of Appearance
Intervener
In personam liability
Procedural Aspect
Crystallisation Aspect
Fault Aspect

15.2 Keywords

Admiralty
Maritime
Collision
Shipping
Maritime Lien
In Rem
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law	95
Shipping Law	80
Civil Practice	60
Civil Procedure	60
Arbitration	10

16. Subjects

Admiralty
Shipping
Maritime Law
Civil Procedure